Some people are opposed to suicide under any circumstances because it is proscribed by their religion. They have been told by an authority that it’s wrong. They hold a strong bias against it.

For people without that view, why would they be biased? Are they not free to come to their own conclusion? Having an opinion does not preclude a good faith argument. And holding an opinion contrary to someone’s dogma does not make an opinion dogmatic.

- Fear of pain

- Fear of old age, or aging in general

- Fear of debility

- Fear of loss of autonomy

- Desire for liberty to do what they want without input from others who may be affected by their decisions

Most people don't opine on issues unless they feel strongly about them. A strong feeling is a bias. There are few scientific parameters on the issues of suicide/euthanasia/MAiD, but it's fraught with ideological parameters, and basically all of the discussion about it comes down to ideology-based claims (with the few fact-based claims used as singular arguments to support a position).

I'm an atheist who values life in large part because I don't believe in an afterlife. I find pain unpleasant, but don't particularly fear it (at this point in my life). I fear the social pressures that government sanctioning and assistance with suicide brings. I fear the decisions that would be made about me, if I'm incapacitated, by people with different moral standards, in a moral framework that encourages them to make those calls for me. I fear the repercussions of "me"-centric (egocentric) social policies, given the power differentials between various individuals. These are my biases.

There's just nothing "scientific" about these sorts of opinions, though, from either side.

Edit to add: I was taking the term "dogmatic" as the colloquial usage. There are ideas about freedom, suffering, and the role of government or physicians that are effectively secular dogmas pertinent to assisted suicide. And many Catholics have personal (non-dogmatic) reasons for their beliefs. Even strong believers pick and choose which parts of religious dogma they find authoritative.

Since it's emotionally charged and intentionally misleading, it's not really the best source to quote.

Sure. I presumed people could parse out the emotion from such an obviously biased source and focus on the claims. But yes, cherry-picked quotes have a higher likelihood from such a source.

The purpose of a source doesn't matter. Whether or not they are misrepresenting (and what they are misrepresenting) does. ProPublica exists solely "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." Yet it does it right, earning a very highly-placed spot on the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart.

It's true that no source is perfect - but some sources are much less perfect than others.

Anyways, thanks for the respectful dialogue. Cheers.